Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

PatPending writes "Aerial drones are now used by the Texas Department of Public Safety; the Mesa County Sheriff's Office, Colorado; the Miami-Dade County, Florida, Police Department; and the Department of Homeland Security. But what about privacy concerns? 'Drones raise the prospect of much more pervasive surveillance,' said Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union's Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. 'We are not against them, absolutely. They can be a valuable tool in certain kinds of operations. But what we don't want to see is their pervasive use to watch over the American people.'"

That's actually not entirely silly. Look at Iran and North Korea and other unstable nations like that. If all nukes (or at least tactical nukes) were outlawed, nations would still try to make them. So yes, only the outlaws would have tactical nukes.

Hopefully the parent will get modded up for humor. But if taken seriously, it's still a good segue into useful discussion.

It'd be pretty easy to land in jail for that, as well. The "fried tech" would establish a radius, and therefore a center. And while you can try to do a covert op and put it in a box that's remote-controlled (blah, blah, blah, etc, etc, etc), it's amazing how good government forensics can get when you've actually annoyed the government.

It would seem to be one way to get labeled with the terrier-ist word...

Plus - have you considered what such a stunt would do for our individual "rights"? The Supreme Court has already declared that when you're in public spaces (including outside a building) you have no expectation of not being recorded both visually and audibly.

Funny you should mention that [theagitator.com] - in this case the person arrested was trying to file a complaint about police misconduct and ran into a bureaucratic wall, so she recorded her final attempt on her blackberry. Many months later they are still starting their investigation into the police misconduct, but they wasted no time in getting her arrested and charged for making the recording.

(sadly) That was recently debated on campus of who was in the right. There are more than enough Americans willing to lay down their freedoms so that the Police aren't inconvenienced. Because "They're in the line of duty to protect us."

And it's an EMP that's local, then it's unlikely to frighten the government...

So yeah, annoyance.

While parts of the government may get violently angry about such a thing, the gov as a whole probably wouldn't be violently angry. If I get bitten by a mosquito, then the cells in the affected area are normally inflamed, but I as a person only want to squash the one mosquito.

I don't know about the government, but I'd bet that your neighbours would be more angry than annoyed, and you'd need to ask for government police intervention to prevent physical 'annoyance' to your face.

I've been waiting for someone to develop directional EMP for some time, just so I can shut down cars with eleventyhundred subwoofers assuming everyone within half a mile radius wants to hear what they have to play.

Why go to all the trouble of EMP? Just get a spotlight to shine on the drone as it passes by your home. I'm sure you can set up some sort of video tracking to automatically pinpoint the drone with a pin light.

Indeed. Google have no right to invade property or privacy, while the police have a right when they have gone through arduous democratically approved processes.

Flying a drone over your house to take photos is no different from using an infrared camera and sensitive microphone from the street... say, to watch your daughter in the shower.

It's time Americans stopped taking it up the ass while they quibble over "rights of corporations" vs "rights of government". Whenever there's a massive power imbalance, the more powerful party needs careful oversight and should not be allowed to take advantage of you, only serve you (government/charity/mutual) or trade for mutual benefit (private party). No exceptions.

Well over a decade ago I was in college, in a house with some friends. The owner had recently broken up with his girlfriend in a rather ungentlemanly fashion and as a result she called local law enforcement and told them he had a hidden drug manufacturing lab in his home. I'd like to point out at this time that this a very very small town... with a very small police force and again mention this was over 10 years ago... The police showed up while I was there drinking a beer. They never bothered me, I in fact continued to drink my beer while standing in a corner chit chatting with one of the cops. One of them whipped out a device that had a large block on one end and a LCD screen on the other. I have no idea how it worked, I assume ultra sound, but they literally looked through the walls of the house with it. They just put the large block thing against the wall and a cable ran back to the screen which showed what was inside it (looking for hidden rooms and such.) They were rather proud of their new gadget and showing it off to us... I think they were already pretty sure the ex was lieing and this allowed them to prove it without destroying the mans house... then they charged her with filing a false report.

At first I was horrified they had such tech. But in this particular case, this police force used it in a very public friendly way. I guess what

Well they expect to raise $50 billion from the new $5000 "untidy yard" fine that will automatically be added to people's property tax when the drone starts taking pictures of people's yards.

In Henrico county, in VA, they have an ordanace that says you can't use inside furniture outside of your home. The idea is apparently to stop people putting couches on the front porch. However a local couple got into trouble for having a bathtub in their backyard used as a planter. I believe it was not visible from the street, and the pics I saw showed that it was very nicely done (not a rusted out heap used as a planter by default). They ended up in court over this. So your joke is not very far from reality

They are a lot cheaper then helicopters. And I think a lot of it will depend on how they are used just like everything else.How is a drone all that different than a police helicopter or a patrol car?And let's think of the positive use cases. Yes I am all for not being under 24 7 surveillance but having a small drone that a police officer can use to see where a sniper is or to find an armed robber that took off into a field isn't such a bad thing.And just to defuse the rhetoric. Yes snipers are rare but arm

Yeah but, in Texas and Florida for that matter, you have one of the freest gun ownership laws in the Union - that makes you freer than the rest of us!

Actually Texas has some of the worst gun ownership laws. Many are unconstitutional according to both the US Constitution and the state's constitution. Only recently have they been expanded to allow allow for proper legal protection for gun owners. In fact, the right to safely stow a weapon (hidden and under lock and key) in your own vehicle, when at work, even with a concealed license, was just recently struck down. Which means, even with a concealed handgun license, the laws prevent most people from being able to protect themselves while in transit. Furthermore, Texas is one of the few states which does not allow open carry in some form or fashion.

People like to think Texas is a throw back to the wild west. In reality, only a couple of years back, Texas was ranked toward the bottom for gun owner rights. Now, Texas is somewhere in the bottom, top third.

Regardless of what you may think, Texas is absolutely NOT, "one of the [states with the] freest gun ownership laws in the Union". There are many, many states which are in front of Texas in this regard.

There is also the fact that one has to get a CHL (concealed handgun license) in either revolver or semi-auto, and have to carry the right firearm for the license.

I'd agree that Texas used to be on the bottom of the list, but has moved up. However, don't let the talk about "castle doctrine" and other laws fool people. There are a good number of people who are going to spend a good chunk of their lives (if not the rest of it) in TDCJ prisons because they did not understand the law and have taken potshots at

If you park on a public street, or in an open-to-the-public general parking lot or garage, I'd support those with guns storing them in their cars.

But if you park on private property, at a job site not open to the public, why would you expect the right to bring a gun onto that property? Many of your rights end at my property line, and that's mostly true even if I've hired you to perform work on my property.

Because the right to work does not terminate one's constitutional rights. I agree if you don't want weapons carried around on your property, you have every right to say so. But the right to destroy other's constitution rights just because you are an employer or business owner simply does not exist.

It's not that guns are needed to feel safe, especially not in Texas. The issue by most I feel is purely political and idealistic. It's a right granted in the US Constitution (with valid debate about how far it actually goes). And if there's one big difference between Europeans and Americans is that many Americans put idealism above pragmatism. From the far left to the far right in the US there's a strong streak of "you can't tell me what to do!" that Americans have in common.So the problem with "in tran

the opportunity for the kind of surveillance now undertaken by piloted helicopters at a fraction of the price.

And an exponential increase in risk to everyone in the air. The simple fact is, these aircraft can not comply with FAA regulations and therefore transfer 50% of the "see and avoid" burden to every other pilot in the air. Its simply not fair. Especially when you consider the hugely increased burden of attempting to visually detect such a small aircraft in what is likely to be busy airspace.

The Houston version had an 8 foot wingspan, and was tossed aloft to launch.

A single, small bird, can easily create an emergency or even death for airplanes. An aircraft this large is extremely li

It seems like as long they don't operate in controlled airspace or over 500 feet then they should not be a big hazard to aircraft. The trick is getting them to stick to this sort of operational ceiling. Perhaps the rumored upcoming FAA regs on remotely piloted vehicles will address this issue more explicitly.

...how to down these things with something other than a bullet? If they start using them for anything other than special occasions, I want to see them drop out of the skies like those birds from a couple weeks ago..

An explosively pumped flux compression generator (EPFCG) is a device used to generate a high-power electromagnetic pulse by compressing magnetic flux using high explosive.

An EPFCG can be used only once as a pulsed power supply since the device is physically destroyed during operation. An EPFCG package that could be easily carried by a person can produce pulses in the millions of amperes and tens of terawatts, exceeding the power of a lightning strike by orders of magnitude. They require a starting current pulse to operate, usually supplied by capacitors.

Yep, an EMP warhead using this technique is used on the head of Tomahawk cruise missiles. The system is basically a coil, a cap, and an explosive. Highly engineered but simple in operation. On the other hand, high explosive tends to make quite a mess, it's not something you're going to get done quietly and cleanly.

It would be safer (and probably more useful in practice) to figure out a way to find out where they are or if they are overhead. You are unlikely to spot them just glancing into the sky, but they radiate RF, and that should be detectable.

...how to down these things with something other than a bullet? If they start using them for anything other than special occasions, I want to see them drop out of the skies like those birds from a couple weeks ago..

Hack them.

It's just a flying government computer.

And that's in fact what scares me the most... they're just flying government computers... so any fool can probably hack into a flying weapon system.

I have absolutely zero citations to back this up, but I seem to recall a story a few years back about the drones used in Iraq/Afghanistan would transmit their video data over an unencrypted signal.

From what I remember the control systems were encrypted of course, but the video data was just openly broadcast so facilitate troops on the ground getting real time video. Basically anyone with a laptop and a dish could listen on the right frequency and see the video. That's not something I want flying over my h

So you're suggesting that the civil rights organizations would use a drone for surveillance? I can think of a few ways to put a camera in the air a lot cheaper than those drones; probably under $200 each.

Think old fashioned - Napoleon used hot air balloons to spot for his troops over 100 years before the airplane was invented. If you want an eye in the sky over a fixed location, a big strong helium balloon will work for you. Not saying it's a responsible use for the world's limited supply of helium, but still...

Try a radio-controlled model airplane. They've been used as camera drones before. After all, that's all those government/military drones are anyway...just a scaled-up version of Junior's RC model plane.

An RC model plane would also be a likely candidate as an improvised anti-drone weapon. You really wouldn't even need any explosives or weapons onboard. Just fly the RC model into the drone's propeller. To make it even more effective, attach some lengths of relatively high strength piano wire or nickel-steel electric guitar string to trail behind the RC model in order to entangle the drone's prop.

Of course, after the first anti-drone RC plane action the government will then proceed to outlaw RC airplanes in the US as terrorist weapons.

Just look at what's happened to amateur/model rocketry in the age of terrorism.

So long as the drones are used to create only hatcheries and no sunken colonies, I will be ok.
But in all seriousness, I do believe that the aerial drones can play a vital role to Law Enforcement. So long as they are quite secure (so not to be used by a third party) and that they have enough red tape in their use so at least minimize abuse, I am all for them. I will not be so idealistic in believing that there would be enough regulation in their uses that their will be absolutely zero abuses. I hate to be a consequentialist, but I think their uses outweigh the potential harm in some people's liberties. Granted, it is a slipper slope. But for me, I do realize that nothing in life is free. With freedom comes responsibility, and with protection comes restrictions on said freedoms freedoms. There is no perfect balance, nor is is perfect with either extreme. Just hope it is regulated enough to where it creates some form of balance.

The responsibility (ie price) of freedom is not giving UP that freedom it is accepting that life comes with a certain degree of danger and uncertainty, and that if you give up your freedom in the name of safety you will wind up with neither.

So you're completely opposed to any sort of government or police force then? Every law that exists requires you to give up freedom for security. By your stated ideology, anarchy is the only option. There has to be a balance.

There is a huge difference between thousands of CCTV cameras mounted on polls and remotely piloted drones with cameras.

The CCTVs in Britain are not continually monitored.Some of them are watched some of the time but most of them just record video. There are not enough police to watch every CCTV continually and react in real time. They are used after the fact to gather evidence of what happened. It has been proven that CCTV does not stop crime it just helps catch criminals.

If you are in your own house, you can't expect privacy from people in the street if your curtains are not drawn. With a drone you can't expect privacy if you are outdoors even if you are in your own backyard - but it is rather hard to draw a curtain over your backyard.

The same police who shoot people and routinely lie [king5.com] about it and almost never get punished can be trusted not to use these new toys to spy on people salaciously ? What BS. What will happen if they are caught ? Nothing. So, it will go on.

"Let's look at government-run health care: the moment you say that the government must be attentive to everyone's health care needs (regardless of their own stupid choices in life), you immediately give the government logical power over your health care as well: do you smoke? what do you eat? do you participate in risky sports? All of these things suddenly become part of the government's purview."

No I think the health of the nation is a legitimate role for government. Like lets say, getting the word on on s

What worries me is that these damn things won't be able to "see and avoid" other VFR aircraft. Privacy is all well and good but you won't have any privacy when a Cessna 182 comes crashing through your roof because one of these things ran into it.

Thus far, in the police tests, drones have been limited [avweb.com] to a maximum altitude of 200 feet and 1,000-foot range from their operator. The FAA is expected to issue an NPRM (notice of proposed rulemaking) this year to streamline the Certificate of Authorization process for law enforcement. The NPRM process will likely include an opportunity for the public to comment.

Ah, now for the Good Old Days of East Germany and the STASI! I think, if they were still alive, Honecker and Mielke would each have blown a batch in their pants over what we can do today in the Good Ol' US of A.

Wrong. They have helped to solve quite a lot of crimes (though probably not enough to justify the cost and invasion of privacy), but what they haven't done is help to reduce crime (although in a few cases they have relocated crime to an area with lower CCTV coverage which can give the appearance of reducing crime if you don't look at the numbers too closely).

If you're doing nothing wrong, you shouldn't mind being watched by cops (i.e. don't drive over speedlimits - ever).Of course this same thinking also applies to Politicians and their being monitored by wikileaks (yes I'm a fan).

AND adjust the laws so going 75 (like everybody already does) on the interstate through farmland isn't a crime.

They'll then have to pay more money to make sure the highway is suitably-maintained to allow such speeds safely, and ensure that everyone's driving test procedure is stringent enough to make sure people can safely drive that fast.

I think there are limits to this kind of thinking. Would you like to be watched by the cops in the toilet? How about in your bedroom? What about your back yard?

I myself am not really bothered by CCTV cameras everywhere in public, but my house and my property are not public. It's one thing for a helicopter to momentarily follow a crook as he dashes across people's back yards, and it's another to be under potential observation 24/7.

The simplistic refutation of this simplistic refutation is: Because my neighbors aren't cops.

More precisely, it's because my neighbors are not officers duly authorized by me (via my citizenship) to observe my behavior looking for violations of the laws I have also authorized.

It's not the observation that's the problem. Real problems are infringements on things like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, unreasonable search and seizure... you know, all those things that are granted in the Constitution [wikipedia.org].

It is honestly no different that police forces using helicopters to patrol high crime areas.

I agree. As long as the drones are the types described in the first featured article and can't stay in the air longer than 1 hr, I don't see how this is worse than choppers. Just as long as they don't start using drones that have more endurance. It would be wise to make this distinction in whatever legislature authorizes this.

It is honestly no different that police forces using helicopters to patrol high crime areas.

I'd disagree. One of the reasons the military uses drones is that they are more stealthy than helicopters or planes, so the "enemy" has less chance of detecting them. But to give you an (obvisously imaginary example) if you heard/saw a chopper flying around the neighborhood, you wouldn't have sex on your roof top in the middle of the day. However you are likely to miss the presence of a drone, and I can guarantee that a drone operator would certainly take a diversionary break for a bit of peeping tom foo

They are more stealthy, so their use would not get as much attention as the use of police choppers. Today you have a few police choppers every now and then, imagine them being overhead constantly, do you think people wouldn't get a wee bit irritated?

Also, it's heaps cheaper to operate such a drone. You'll see them used more often and you'll see more of them used, simply because the inhibition to send them up would be way lower.

1) Choppers are loud. You can hear them coming and its not a secret when they're there.2) Choppers have live people in them. The police are in there and if they see you, they really saw you. It's not streaming from a camera to a location which has the capacity to record everything and be reviewed over and over again, at will.3) Drones are just creepy. Even the word creeps me out.

If they get cheap enough, they can have ubiquitous coverage. This is never going to happen with helicopters because they cost too much and consume too much in the way of manpower.

On the other hand, a fleet of drones feeding data back into an expert system would a much further reaching and valuable source of data - so much so that you can bet within a few years that there will be companies lobbying for the ability to buy the data so they can analyze it to see where they should plunk their next Starbucks. Or

A loitering drone network feeding into false color crime maps and 3d stats to be enjoyed by local underfunded cops.
So if they wanted to mess with you while driving it was a bit random without a gps tracker. Now they can find you the second you walk out the front door, 24/7.
Makes you rethink about that court case, complaint, next peace protest, political rally ect.
Your unknown face and a well made picket sign is no longer such a mystery.
Walk, ride, car, bus back from a local event, your home or a frie

We have noticed that you have been experiencing an uptake in visitors that meet you at your door and leave within a minute. This is suspect to charges of drug distribution. If this process continues, we will seek further action.

Because they don't just operate n the visible spectrum. Using infrared, they know people are in specific locations in a house. In England, where this practice is common, it is a regular event for houses to be raided for drug "grow rooms" just because of an unusual heat signature. Often, it's just been a poor insulation job in winter, and you DON'T get any apology.

Worse, in the UK for example, if your electricity usage unexpectedly increases, you'll have the same raid and lack of apology.

Cell phones to find or trace voice prints or numbers of interest ie state and city techs get to play NSA.
How soon before the bankrupt states/cities with a need need to 'confiscate" and IRS go Greek and think of looking for "expensive" things they cannot see from the road?http://www.zerohedge.com/article/greek-tax-avoidance-101-cover-your-swimming-pool-tarp-fool-satellite [zerohedge.com]
Are you living and upgrading your property beyond the local average poverty level/tax return and have unknown extra funds to invest in